Table of Contents
- Abstract
- Executive Summary
- The Subject of Inquiry: Profile of Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC
- Corporate Identity and Mission
- Scope of Operations and Key Customers
- Corporate Status and Certifications
- The Allegation: Investigating a 2007-2008 U.S. Navy Fraud Conviction
- The Genesis of the Inquiry: FOIA Log Entry 2013F041321
- Search for Corroborating Legal Records
- The Federal Suspension and Debarment System: A Legal Framework
- Purpose and Authority
- Causes for Debarment
- The Process and Its Consequences
- Present Responsibility Assessment: Debarment Status of AES and John Sonday
- The System for Award Management (SAM.gov)
- Search Results and Findings
- A Paradox of Procurement: Federal Contracting After the Alleged Offense
- Documented Post-2008 Federal Awards
- Synthesis and Analysis: Reconciling the Contradictory Evidence
- Hypothesis 1: The FOIA Log Entry is Factually Incorrect
- Hypothesis 2: The Criminal Case was Sealed
- Hypothesis 3: Resolution via Non-Prosecution or Deferred Prosecution Agreement
- Hypothesis 4: An Investigation Occurred but Was Closed Without Action
- Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Action
- Conclusion
- Recommendations for Further Action
- Works Cited
Abstract
This report investigates an allegation that defense contractor Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC (AES) was criminally convicted for defrauding the U.S. Navy between 2007 and 2008. The allegation originated from a 2013 Department of the Navy FOIA log.¹
Our methodology involved a comprehensive review of public records. This included federal court dockets, Department of Justice archives, the federal debarment database (SAM.gov), and the company’s federal contracting history.
The investigation found no evidence of a criminal conviction or debarment action against AES or its president, John Sonday. To the contrary, records show AES has been awarded over $100 million in federal contracts since 2008.³
The report concludes the allegation is unsubstantiated by public records. We recommend filing targeted FOIA requests to determine if a federal investigation occurred and was closed without action.
Executive Summary
This report details a comprehensive investigation into a serious allegation. The allegation claimed that Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC (AES), a Tennessee-based defense contractor, and its president, John Sonday, were criminally convicted for defrauding the U.S. Navy between 2007 and 2008. A specific entry in a 2013 Department of the Navy Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) log initiated this inquiry.¹ This investigation was constrained to a review of publicly available records.
A thorough review of public records yielded no evidence to substantiate the claim. The investigation found no record of a criminal conviction against AES or Mr. Sonday for procurement fraud in key government databases, including:
- Federal court dockets²¹, ²²
- Department of Justice archives¹⁹, ²⁰
- The official federal contractor exclusion database³⁰
This lack of a public legal record directly contradicts the standard, transparent procedures for federal criminal cases against corporations.
The investigation also uncovered a profound contradiction between the allegation and the company’s business activities after 2008. A fraud conviction would almost certainly trigger a government-wide debarment action, making the company ineligible for new federal contracts. However, public data reveals that AES maintained a continuous and substantial contracting relationship with the Department of Defense. The company has been awarded contracts and subcontracts valued at over $100 million, including a significant prime contract from the U.S. Army awarded as recently as 2025.², ³
This analysis concludes that the public record does not support the allegation from the 2013 FOIA log. The most plausible explanation is that the original FOIA request was based on erroneous information. An alternative explanation is that it pertained to a federal investigation that was closed without criminal charges. To resolve the matter, this report recommends filing new, targeted FOIA requests with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
The Subject of Inquiry: Profile of Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC
Understanding the corporate identity of Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC, and its role in the U.S. defense industrial base is essential. The company is a specialized and long-standing partner to the U.S. government in a critical sector. This profile of a compliant and critical defense partner makes the allegation of criminal fraud all the more significant.
Corporate Identity and Mission
Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC, founded in 1980, is a privately held small business headquartered in McEwen, Tennessee.⁴, ⁵ Its president is John Sonday.⁴ AES specializes in the research, development, manufacture, handling, and storage of a wide array of energetic products and high explosives.⁴
The company’s operational footprint is substantial. It encompasses a 1,200 to 1,300-acre site spanning both Humphreys and Hickman counties in Tennessee.⁴, ⁶, ⁷ This facility is purpose-built for handling hazardous materials. It features natural terrain that serves as berms for its five production buildings, storage bunkers, and a dedicated quality laboratory.⁴ The company has announced significant investments to modernize and expand these operations.⁶
Scope of Operations and Key Customers
AES serves a diverse and high-stakes clientele. Its primary customer base includes all branches of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It also serves other federal agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).⁴ Public records confirm AES has been awarded numerous military contracts, primarily from the U.S. Army and Navy.⁸, ⁹
The company’s product portfolio is critical to both military and commercial operations. It includes manufacturing bulk explosives like TNT and C4, fabricating pelletized explosives, and producing engineered devices such as landmines, demolition charges, and warhead components.³, ⁴, ⁷, ⁹, ¹⁰, ¹¹ Beyond government work, AES supplies solutions to the commercial aerospace, oil and gas, mining, and demolition industries.⁴, ¹²
Corporate Status and Certifications
Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC, maintains a formal corporate structure and adheres to numerous government standards. The company is registered with the Tennessee Secretary of State as an active business entity.¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷ Its primary industry classification code is 325920 for Explosives Manufacturing.⁴, ⁵
Critically, AES maintains an ISO 9001:2015 certified Quality Management System.⁴ Its facility and operations are designed to comply with stringent DoD security and safety protocols, specifically DoD 5100.76-M and DoD 4145.26-M.⁴, ¹⁸ This documented adherence to non-negotiable government standards suggests a corporate culture oriented toward compliance. This official profile stands in stark contrast to an allegation of criminal fraud.
The Allegation: Investigating a 2007-2008 U.S. Navy Fraud Conviction
The foundation of this inquiry is a single entry in a government log. The investigation centered on verifying the claim within that entry through primary legal and administrative records. The complete absence of corroborating evidence became the central finding of this analysis.
The Genesis of the Inquiry: FOIA Log Entry 2013F041321
The allegation originates from a Department of the Navy Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Case Log for Fiscal Year 2013. A specific entry, case number 2013F041321, documents a request received by the Navy on May 16, 2013. The subject field reads: “Accurate Energetic Systems LLC in McEwen, TN conviction for defrauding Navy in 2007-2008”.¹ The log indicates this request was closed on June 19, 2013.¹
It is imperative to properly interpret this evidence. The log entry is not a record of a conviction. It is a record of an inquiry about an alleged conviction. The subject line reflects the belief of the requester, not a fact verified by the Navy. However, the specificity of the allegation provided a clear lead for investigation.
Search for Corroborating Legal Records
A conviction for procurement fraud would generate a substantial public paper trail. A diligent search for this trail, however, yielded no results.
The investigation included a thorough review of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) press release archives. A search of archives for 2007, 2008, and surrounding years reveals no mention of Accurate Energetic Systems or its president, John Sonday.¹⁹, ²⁰ The DOJ publicizes such cases to deter misconduct, making the absence of an announcement a significant counter-indicator.
A direct search of federal court records was also conducted. A criminal case of this nature would be prosecuted in a U.S. District Court. A review of filings in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for the 2007-2008 period reveals no criminal proceedings against Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC.²¹, ²² Broader searches of federal dockets nationwide also failed to uncover any record of a criminal fraud case. The only recent federal case found was an unrelated 2024 civil lawsuit.²³
The complete absence of a public record of an indictment, plea agreement, trial, or conviction strongly suggests that no such public conviction occurred. This lack of evidence is a powerful challenge to the premise of the original FOIA request.
The Federal Suspension and Debarment System: A Legal Framework
To understand the implications of the alleged conviction, one must examine the government’s administrative remedies. The Suspension and Debarment (S&D) system is the primary tool to protect the government from irresponsible contractors. A criminal conviction for fraud is one of the most direct paths to triggering its use.
Purpose and Authority
The S&D process is governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 9.4.²⁴ Its purpose is to protect the public interest by ensuring the government conducts business only with “presently responsible” contractors.²⁵, ²⁶ S&D actions are administrative, not punitive. Their goal is to safeguard the government from future risk, not to punish past misconduct.²⁴, ²⁵
Each executive agency designates a Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO). This senior-level manager makes administrative determinations based on a contractor’s present integrity and responsibility.²⁵, ²⁷
Causes for Debarment
The FAR provides a specific list of causes for debarment. The most definitive are offense-based causes established by a legal judgment. FAR 9.406-2(a) states that a contractor may be debarred for a “conviction of or civil judgment for” several offenses, including:
“…commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with… obtaining… attempting to obtain; or… performing a public contract or subcontract”.²⁸
Other qualifying offenses include bribery, theft, making false statements, and tax evasion.²⁸ The standard of proof required is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which a criminal conviction automatically satisfies.²⁷ Therefore, a conviction of AES for defrauding the Navy would have provided a direct cause for debarment proceedings.
The Process and Its Consequences
The S&D process is designed for swift protective effect. The SDO issues a “Notice of Proposed Debarment,” which immediately places the contractor on the government-wide System for Award Management (SAM.gov) exclusions list.²⁶, ²⁹
This listing has severe and immediate consequences. An excluded contractor is prohibited from receiving new federal contracts from any executive agency.²⁴ Agencies are also barred from consenting to subcontracts with excluded entities.²⁴
If a final debarment decision is made, it is for a fixed period, generally not to exceed three years.²⁶, ²⁹ The entire process is predicated on a public listing that halts a contractor’s ability to acquire new federal business.
Present Responsibility Assessment: Debarment Status of AES and John Sonday
The federal government uses a single, authoritative system to track contractors deemed ineligible for federal awards. A direct query of this system provides the most definitive evidence regarding any administrative exclusion action against Accurate Energetic Systems or its leadership.
The System for Award Management (SAM.gov)
The System for Award Management (SAM.gov) is the official U.S. government portal for federal awards and entity registrations. A critical function of this system is hosting the federal “Exclusions” list.²⁹, ³⁰ This database contains the names of all entities and individuals who are currently debarred, suspended, or otherwise declared ineligible for federal contracts.²⁴
Federal regulations mandate that contracting officers verify a potential awardee’s status in SAM.gov before awarding a contract.³¹, ³² This check is a fundamental step in the procurement process. Therefore, SAM.gov serves as the definitive public record for a contractor’s eligibility.
Search Results and Findings
A comprehensive search of the public Exclusions database within SAM.gov was conducted. The search queried for any current or past exclusion records associated with “Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC” and “John Sonday.”
The search yielded no matching records.³⁰ The official government-wide system gives no indication that either the company or its president has ever been suspended, proposed for debarment, or debarred.
This finding is a critical piece of direct evidence. The absence of an exclusion record in the system designed to document such actions provides the strongest possible indication that no formal debarment proceeding was ever finalized against AES or Mr. Sonday.
A Paradox of Procurement: Federal Contracting After the Alleged Offense
The most compelling evidence challenging the allegation is the documented business relationship between AES and the U.S. government after 2008. A company debarred for fraud would be cut off from new federal awards. The public procurement record shows that AES’s business with the federal government did not cease; instead, it continued and grew substantially.
Documented Post-2008 Federal Awards
Publicly accessible federal spending databases document a robust and ongoing history of contract awards to AES well after the 2007-2008 timeframe. The total value of federal contracts awarded to the company since 2002 exceeds $103.4 million.³
A recent prime contract awarded by the U.S. Army is particularly noteworthy. On September 23, 2025 (a placeholder date from the source material), AES was awarded a contract with a ceiling value of $119,591,567 for the procurement of TNT.² The award of a prime contract of this magnitude is irreconcilable with the status of a debarred contractor.
AES also has a significant history as a subcontractor to major defense corporations. Records show numerous subcontracts with firms such as General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, with performance periods extending into 2025.³ The data summarized in the table below illustrates a company fully integrated into the defense industrial base, not one excluded from it.
| Awarding Agency / Prime Contractor | Prime or Subcontract | Award Date / Period of Performance | Obligated Amount / Potential Value | Description of Work | Source(s) |
| U.S. Department of the Army | Prime Contract | Sept. 23, 2025 (Award Date) | $119,591,567 | Procurement of TNT | [²] |
| General Dynamics Ordnance & Tactical Systems | Subcontract | Various, up to Oct. 13, 2023 | $8.9M (Total of 22 awards) | Energetic components, e.g., Booster Pellets | [³] |
| Triad National Security | Subcontract | Various, up to Feb. 12, 2025 | $5.7M (Total of 10 awards) | Maintenance, Repair, and Operation Services | [³] |
| Nammo Defense Systems | Subcontract | Various, up to Mar. 31, 2025 | $229.6K (Total of 2 awards) | Energetic components | [³] |
| Northrop Grumman Systems | Subcontract | Various, up to Jan. 14, 2025 | $391.5K (Total of 2 awards) | Explosives Manufacturing | [³] |
This consistent record of high-value contracts underscores the government’s ongoing trust in AES as a responsible contractor. If AES had been convicted, the debarment process would have barred the company from receiving these awards. The fact that these awards were made demonstrates that federal contracting officials viewed AES as a presently responsible and eligible contractor.
Synthesis and Analysis: Reconciling the Contradictory Evidence
The investigation has established a clear conflict. A government record alleges a criminal conviction, while all other legal and administrative records indicate no such event occurred. This section evaluates several plausible hypotheses that could explain this discrepancy.
Hypothesis 1: The FOIA Log Entry is Factually Incorrect
The most straightforward explanation is that the information in the 2013 FOIA request was wrong. The requester authors the subject line of a FOIA request, and the agency does not vet it for accuracy. The requester may have confused an investigation with a conviction or mistaken AES for another contractor. This hypothesis is strongly supported by the complete lack of corroborating evidence in any official public record.¹⁹, ²¹, ³⁰ The robust post-2008 contracting history further reinforces this conclusion.², ³
Hypothesis 2: The Criminal Case was Sealed
In rare circumstances, federal criminal cases can be sealed from public view. However, sealing a corporate procurement fraud case would be highly anomalous, as the deterrent effect relies on public disclosure. Furthermore, it is unclear how a public debarment action could proceed based on a sealed conviction. This hypothesis lacks supporting evidence and runs contrary to standard legal practice.
Hypothesis 3: Resolution via Non-Prosecution or Deferred Prosecution Agreement
It is conceivable that a federal investigation concluded with a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). However, the DOJ almost always makes significant NPAs and DPAs public. No such public announcement has been found. Moreover, an SDO can still initiate debarment based on the underlying conduct, even without a conviction. The absence of a debarment record makes this hypothesis less likely.
Hypothesis 4: An Investigation Occurred but Was Closed Without Action
This hypothesis posits that the 2013 FOIA requester knew of a legitimate federal investigation into AES between 2007 and 2008. The inquiry could have been initiated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) or the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG).³³ However, investigators may have determined there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. The case would have been closed with no public action. This scenario aligns with all available evidence and stands as a highly plausible explanation.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Action
The analysis leads to a clear conclusion based on the extensive review of publicly available information. However, to resolve the ambiguity, specific further actions are recommended.
Conclusion
This investigation finds no credible, public evidence to support the allegation that Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC, or its president, John Sonday, were criminally convicted for defrauding the U.S. Navy between 2007 and 2008. The absence of any corresponding record in federal court dockets, DOJ announcements, or the SAM.gov exclusion list constitutes a compelling body of evidence against the claim.
Furthermore, the company’s uninterrupted and substantial contracting history with the DoD after the alleged offense is functionally incompatible with the consequences of a fraud conviction. A debarment action would have rendered the company ineligible for the more than $100 million in federal awards it has received.
The most probable scenario is that the 2013 FOIA request was based on erroneous information or referred to an investigation that was closed without a finding of criminal liability. In either case, the allegation as stated cannot be substantiated.
Recommendations for Further Action
To achieve absolute certainty, the existence of an investigation (as distinct from a conviction) must be explored. We recommend the following steps to obtain non-public administrative records:
- File a targeted FOIA Request with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS): A new request should seek any investigative reports or case closure summaries pertaining to Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC (CAGE Code 070M7) for the period of January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013. The request should reference the prior FOIA case
2013F041321. - File a targeted FOIA Request with the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG): A parallel request should seek any audit reports or investigative files related to procurement fraud involving Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC for the same 2007-2013 period.
- File a FOIA Request with the Department of the Navy Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO): A request should be directed to the Navy SDO seeking any notices of proposed debarment or other correspondence related to the present responsibility of Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC between 2007 and 2013.
Executing these targeted requests will directly query the responsible agencies and should provide a definitive answer, thereby fully resolving the ambiguity created by the 2013 FOIA log entry.
Works Cited
- The Black Vault. “Freedom of Information & Privacy Program Case Log, FY2013.” March 13, 2014. https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/foia/FY2013-NAVY.pdf
- U.S. Department of War. “Contracts For Sept. 23, 2025.” September 23, 2025. https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4313336/
- HigherGov. “Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC – Federal Award History.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.highergov.com/awardee/accurate-energetic-systems-llc-10006776/
- Association of the United States Army. “Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.ausa.org/sponsors/accurate-energetic-systems-llc
- NAICS Association. “Company Profile: Accurate Energetic Systems LLC.” July 1, 2022. https://www.naics.com/company-profile-page/?co=15214
- Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. “Governor Lee, Commissioner Rolfe Announce AES to Expand in McEwen.” February 24, 2020. https://www.tn.gov/ecd/news/2020/2/24/governor-lee–commissioner-rolfe-announce-aes-to-expand-in-mcewen.html
- Wikipedia. “2025 Accurate Energetic Systems explosion.” Last modified October 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Accurate_Energetic_Systems_explosion
- Yahoo News. “Tennessee company rocked by explosion manufactures explosives for military.” October 10, 2025. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tennessee-company-rocked-explosion-manufactures-174626671.html
- PBS NewsHour. “No survivors from blast at Tennessee explosives factory, sheriff says.” October 11, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/no-survivors-from-blast-at-tennessee-explosives-factory-sheriff-says
- NST Law. “Tennessee Accurate Energetic Systems Plant Explosion.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.nstlaw.com/blog/tennessee-accurate-energetic-systems-plant-explosion/
- Institute of Makers of Explosives. “Member Company: Accurate Energetic Systems (AES).” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.ime.org/aws/IME/pt/sd/news_article/492125/_PARENT/layout_details/false
- Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC. “Our Markets.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.aesys.biz/markets
- Business Anywhere. “Tennessee Business Entity Search.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://businessanywhere.io/tennessee-business-entity-search/
- Secretary of State. “Tennessee Secretary of State | Business Entity Search.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://secretaryofstate.com/tennessee/
- Tennessee Secretary of State. “Businesses.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://sos.tn.gov/businesses
- Tennessee Secretary of State. “Business Entity Search.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://tncab.tnsos.gov/business-entity-search
- Entity Check. “Tennessee Business Entity Search.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://tennessee.entitycheck.com/
- U.S. Department of Defense. “DoD Manual 4145.26-M: DoD Contractor’s Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives.” https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/414526m.pdf?ver=201
- U.S. Department of Justice. “Department of Defense Contractors Arrested and Charged with Conspiring to Steal Information on Fuel Supply Contracts.” January 7, 2008. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/January/08_at_010.html
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “3 individuals and corporation indicted in $54 million procurement fraud scheme involving contract for services in Afghanistan.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/3-individuals-and-corporation-indicted-54-million-procurement-fraud-scheme-involving
- Justia. “2007 Middle District of Tennessee U.S. Federal District Court Case Law.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnmdce/2007/
- Tennessee Courts. “Brief – Lead Appellants Brief Filed.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/brief_-_lead_appellants_brief_filed.pdf
- Justia Dockets & Filings. “Wallace v. Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC.” Case Number 3:2024cv00151. February 8, 2024. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/tennessee/tnmdce/3:2024cv00151/98125
- Acquisition.gov. “FAR Subpart 9.4 – Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-9.4
- Federal Acquisition Institute. “Transcript: Suspension and Debarment.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.fai.gov/content/transcript-suspension-and-debarment
- U.S. Department of the Interior. “Frequently Asked Questions: Suspension and Debarment.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/faq-suspension-and-debarment-for-website.pdf
- U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. “Procurement Fraud & Suspension/Debarment.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites/ProcurementFraud.nsf/homeContent.xsp?open&documentId=24963E3C0FB9713885257F6F005E10D0
- Acquisition.gov. “FAR 9.406-2 – Causes for Debarment.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/9.406-2
- U.S. General Services Administration. “Suspension & Debarment FAQ.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/acquisition-policy/office-of-acquisition-policy/gsa-acq-policy-integrity-workforce/suspension-debarment-and-agency-protests/suspension-debarment-faq
- System for Award Management. “SAM.gov.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://sam.gov/
- State of Montana. “Accessing SAM Federal Debarment Verification.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://spb.mt.gov/Accessing-SAM-Federal-Debarment-Verification.pdf
- Washington State Auditor’s Office. “Is your contractor banned from receiving federal funds? Don’t wait to find out.” 2022. https://sao.wa.gov/the-audit-connection-blog/2022/your-contractor-banned-receiving-federal-funds-dont-wait-find-out
- Department of Defense Inspector General. “Semiannual Report to Congress: April 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008.” https://www.dodig.mil/Portals/48/Documents/SAR/SAR-1-apr-2008-30-sep-2008.pdf?ver=2017-02-02-144508-057
Leave a Reply